Fall of the Automobile, Rise of the Appliance

[Harry P.]

Oh, and Harry.......the way I understand it, most of the oil that the Earth still has left is buried beneath the ground in ALASKA.

According to the CIA's "Fact Book," the ten countries with the most proven oil reserves (as of 2008) are:

1. Saudi Arabia

2. Canada

3. Iran

4. Iraq

5. Kuwait

6. United Arab Emirates

7. Venezuela

8. Russia

9. Libya

10. Nigeria

Apart from Canada, that isn't exactly a list of our ten biggest buddies in the world, is it?

[roadhawg]

According to the CIA's "Fact Book," the ten countries with the most proven oil reserves (as of 2008) are:

1. Saudi Arabia

2. Canada

3. Iran

4. Iraq

5. Kuwait

6. United Arab Emirates

7. Venezuela

8. Russia

9. Libya

10. Nigeria

Apart from Canada, that isn't exactly a list of our ten biggest buddies in the world, is it?

Dunno....I thought those guys in Nigeria were pretty cool......they sure keep emailing me about having 20 million dollars in a bank account for me......

[E St. Kruiser50]

Guys..... Nearly all of the foreign designs, with the exception of a few, are direct coppies of domestic models and have been for a long time.

Chris Capucini

Chris, I appreciate all the time you took to post this, but I'm assuming you must be in your twenties to have included this "QUOTED" statement in your post.

The American car manufacturers have been playing "CATCH-UP" for decades to the foreign car manufacturers, because of the quality, style, and long term service the foreign manufacturers provide. Also the much higher resale value.

THE ONLY REASON WE'VE HAD GREAT CARS TO DRIVE IN THIS COUNTRY UNTIL LATELY, IS BECAUSE THE FOREIGN MARKET >DIDN'T< COPY OUR JUNK FORM THE PAST.

TELL ME, WHAT DID MERCEDES, SUBARU, VOLVO, NISSAN, TOYOTA, HONDA, BMW, ETC. COPY FROM US TO MAKE A BETTER CAR THAN OURS, OR EVEN LOOK LIKE OURS, AND WHY HAVE ALL >OUR< CARS LOOKED LIKE THEIRS FOR THE LAST 15 or 20 years ???? And why does theirs last MUCH longer.

I do love American cars, JUST NOT AMERICAN JUNK.

It took us decades to come to this point where the U.S. manufacturers are making some descent cars again, and I agree, we have some nice cars here now.

[Modelmartin]

According to the CIA's "Fact Book," the ten countries with the most proven oil reserves (as of 2008) are:

1. Saudi Arabia

2. Canada

3. Iran

4. Iraq

5. Kuwait

6. United Arab Emirates

7. Venezuela

8. Russia

9. Libya

10. Nigeria

Apart from Canada, that isn't exactly a list of our ten biggest buddies in the world, is it?

I would point out two things here.

1) The oil industries only "proves" reserves out for a certain number of years. That is why there are always "only" 30 years of proven reserves. It would not make any sense to prove out reserves any further. The tar sands in Canada are estimated (not proven) to have 500 years of oil but at a greater costs than the light sweet crude that practically jumps out of the ground in the mideast.

2) We have bases in Kuwait. They , the U.A.E. and Iraq are officially our allies. Even Saddam was our boy in the 80s. Friend or foe is a highly changeable thing in this world.

[Abell82]

There's whole lot more to this story, but this post is long enough without getting into the political aspect of it all. Hopefully I've given you some info that sparks some thought about all this. Everything I put in this post is fact, and I tried to keep my own personal views out of it. So please don't shoot the messanger!!1

Chris Capucini

The last time I checked, Chevy was in bed with Toyota. Chevy's come from the factory powered by Toyota engines. Are there any Toyota's that came from the factory with a Chevy engine?

[Harry P.]

Canada and Venezuela do have vast amounts of "oil sands" reserves, but the "oil" in these deposits is not liquid, but a very viscous semi-solid, much like tar, which is both expensive and environmentally unfriendly to extract. Basically, the way to get at these deposits is via strip mining, then using one of several processes to separate the oil from the rock and sand. Strip mining is obviously very destructive to the environment, and the processes used to extract the oil from the sand are also environmentally unfriendly.

The oil sands deposits are sort of a "last resort" as far as oil production goes. When the price of gas was around $4 a gallon, the cost to extract oil from these deposits was justifiable, but with "conventional" oil prices now back down from the stratosphere, the extraction of oil from these deposits is probably cost-prohibitive.

[BigGary]

So, what's the hottest selling car right now, so hot they can't make 'em fast enough? The new Camaro. (Just goes to show Americans take style over substance) This is the first car in some time from Chevy that is not cookie cutter copy of the same thing in Buick, Pontiac (soon R.I.P.), and earlier, Oldsmobile (R.I.P.) It probably won't last long because, as someone noted, its a niche market. Neither the price, styling, number of doors, gas mileage, etc. will make it a one-in-every-driveway kind of car.

It will be interesting to see what the future holds. The long touted electric cars like the Chevy Volt are a lot farther off than predicted. Remember the GM EVA. They weren't sold, but leased to drivers. They had a hard time finding people willing to take them. A monumental DUD! Millions of your tax dollars blown to smithereens.

The closest thing to a truly desirable "green" car would be fueled by natural gas, but its some sort of environmental crime to drill for natural gas. 130 octane, no pollution are good for me. Just filter it, put stinky stuff in it, create a system of fueling stations besides your house. (Yes, you can fill it at home with the right equipment) And, the speculation of it is that we have 500 years of it between our shores. Works for me. This is not new technology, its already there, in use, in major cities.

Gary

[Abell82]

So, what's the hottest selling car right now, so hot they can't make 'em fast enough? The new Camaro. (Just goes to show Americans take style over substance) This is the first car in some time from Chevy that is not cookie cutter copy of the same thing in Buick, Pontiac (soon R.I.P.), and earlier, Oldsmobile (R.I.P.) It probably won't last long because, as someone noted, its a niche market. Neither the price, styling, number of doors, gas mileage, etc. will make it a one-in-every-driveway kind of car.

It will be interesting to see what the future holds. The long touted electric cars like the Chevy Volt are a lot farther off than predicted. Remember the GM EVA. They weren't sold, but leased to drivers. They had a hard time finding people willing to take them. A monumental DUD! Millions of your tax dollars blown to smithereens.

The closest thing to a truly desirable "green" car would be fueled by natural gas, but its some sort of environmental crime to drill for natural gas. 130 octane, no pollution are good for me. Just filter it, put stinky stuff in it, create a system of fueling stations besides your house. (Yes, you can fill it at home with the right equipment) And, the speculation of it is that we have 500 years of it between our shores. Works for me. This is not new technology, its already there, in use, in major cities.

Gary

Big Gary, it was EV1, and it was VERY popular. I think you need to look it up.

[Modelmartin]

Millions of your tax dollars blown to smithereens.

Gary

Huh!

GM paid the bill for the EV1. They likely cancelled it because they beat the clean air regs in court. That happened during Bush administration. They did build a CNG version, too.

[old-hermit]

The last time I checked, Chevy was in bed with Toyota. Chevy's come from the factory powered by Toyota engines. Are there any Toyota's that came from the factory with a Chevy engine?

The F engine is a 3.9 liter, 75/93 kW (105/125 hp), carburated gasoline engine that is capable of 261/289 N·m (189/209 ft·lbf) of torque at 2000 RPM; the difference in power and torque is different depending on the export destination. The original design was started in the early 1950s when Toyota had begun to export their vehicles internationally.

The F engine is based on the 1939-63 G.M.C. L6 OHV 228 etc. OHV engine (rather than the similar but smaller Chevrolet 1937-63 Gen-2 L6 OHV engine), and built under license. The general idea was consumers would feel comfortable with the engine since it was a familiar design and had a proven track record. Some of the bottom end of the engine is rumored to be interchangeable with these engines, although the dimensions are metric.

The engine was first introduced in the Land Cruiser, and in many countries, was the only engines offered in the Landcruiser until 1993. Although it's commonly badged as the Land Cruiser engine, it was used in a variety of other large truck applications as well, such as in fire trucks and the Toyota FQ-15 trucks. It was also used in the Crown based Japanese Police Patrol Cars FH26 and FS20-FS50.

[old-hermit]

FYI,

Although they are not expected to reach the mass market before 2010, fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) may someday revolutionize on-road transportation.

This emerging technology has the potential to significantly reduce energy use and harmful emissions, as well as our dependence on foreign oil. FCVs will have other benefits as well.

FCVs represent a radical departure from vehicles with conventional internal combustion engines. Like battery-electric vehicles, FCVs are propelled by electric motors. But while battery electric vehicles use electricity from an external source (and store it in a battery), FCVs create their own electricity. Fuel cells onboard the vehicle create electricity through a chemical process using hydrogen fuel and oxygen from the air.

FCVs can be fueled with pure hydrogen gas stored onboard in high-pressure tanks. They also can be fueled with hydrogen-rich fuels; such as methanol, natural gas, or even gasoline; but these fuels must first be converted into hydrogen gas by an onboard device called a "reformer."

FCVs fueled with pure hydrogen emit no pollutants; only water and heat; while those using hydrogen-rich fuels and a reformer produce only small amounts of air pollutants. In addition, FCVs can be twice as efficient as similarly sized conventional vehicles and may also incorporate other advanced technologies to increase efficiency.

... and you can fill up at the garden hose !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[capsgs]

Chris, I appreciate all the time you took to post this, but I'm assuming you must be in your twenties to have included this "QUOTED" statement in your post.

The American car manufacturers have been playing "CATCH-UP" for decades to the foreign car manufacturers, because of the quality, style, and long term service the foreign manufacturers provide. Also the much higher resale value.

THE ONLY REASON WE'VE HAD GREAT CARS TO DRIVE IN THIS COUNTRY UNTIL LATELY, IS BECAUSE THE FOREIGN MARKET >DIDN'T< COPY OUR JUNK FORM THE PAST.

TELL ME, WHAT DID MERCEDES, SUBARU, VOLVO, NISSAN, TOYOTA, HONDA, BMW, ETC. COPY FROM US TO MAKE A BETTER CAR THAN OURS, OR EVEN LOOK LIKE OURS, AND WHY HAVE ALL >OUR< CARS LOOKED LIKE THEIRS FOR THE LAST 15 or 20 years ???? And why does theirs last MUCH longer.

I do love American cars, JUST NOT AMERICAN JUNK.

It took us decades to come to this point where the U.S. manufacturers are making some descent cars again, and I agree, we have some nice cars here now.

Actually Dave I'm 50 years old and have been in this business in this position for over 30 years. The reason I made that statement is that if you look way back to the initial entries of the foreign cars, they were in no way even close to the designs that our cars were. If you look at cars from Datsun, Toyota and Honda from the beginning they were just basic transportation that were reliable and no frills. They eventually started designing cars that were more what the US were used to. (mid sized sedans etc.) However, if you look at the mechanics of it, those designs were copies of US technology that they did manage to improve on. But not original in any way. I do agree that the US manufacturers were way behind in quality and efficientcy and that we have been playing catch up for a long time. I'll even go as far as to say that the foreign cars are the reason our quality is what it is today. Again though, as far as original styling, they were all influenced by the US designs. Just one example is the Honda Ridgerunner. If that thing isn't a direct copy of an Avalanche I don't know what is. Now I know that this example is a very blatant one, but it does illistrate my point. Eventually the foreign designers did come around and start doing some original stuff, but not much that wasn't influenced by US designs. Take note that I'm speaking designs here and not styling. Take a look at the ammount of money that the foreign manufacturers have stuck into SUVs and Trucks and only to have come up with mediocre results. I had to laugh when I attended the Nascar truck race in Mansfield and saw 2 Toyota show truck trailers being pulled by a Chevy and Ford truck! Do you know about Toyota's recall on their truck frames for rusting out? If not don't worry a lot of people didn't. Why? Because the media didn't splash it all over the news. You mention BMW in your post. Great cars! The ride, handeling and comfort are on par with the best out there. However if you delve into the statistics on their cars you will find that they are the worst in their segment for cost of ownership and problems per units. You won't catch a BMW owner telling you about that though, because it's a status symbol. I have even heard BMWs refered to as Bring Mechanic Withyou. And this was from a BMW dealer!!! Look my point is this. The foreign manufacturers have wooped the US manufacturers behinds, no question. Are their current designs attractive? Yes. Are they a quality product? Yes. Are they better than US cars? Not any more. The US manufacturers just need to become the leaders they once were and quit following.

[BigGary]

Looking back at the original cars imported from Japanese manufacturers you will find them very basic. The first 4,000 Hondas imported were scrapped because it didn't have an efficient heater. The engine was 600 cc and air cooled. Rather than repair them, they all went to a scrap yard. They were very small, underpowered, and most people only know of the next edition. The next interation was larger and had a water-cooled engine. A friend had one and found it unreliable and uncomfortable to drive. At 6'6" I couldn't even get into the thing.

The first Subarus and Toyota were much the same. A lot of time and development went into creating a car for the US market. Nissan did a lttle better with the Datsun 1200 roadster. It was a small sports car. Not many were sold but created a better reputation than the others enjoyed in the beginning.

Japanese companies were about 20 years from the end of WWII when there cars began showing up in the US. It takes time for a war torn nation to rebuild.

VW had the advantage of having a functioning car plant through most of WWII and at the end. The British took control of VW and built cars to provide jobs in Germany. The first VW's came here in the late 40's. They weren't very successful at first, but the rest is history. The VW Beetle reached its peak sales here in 1969, about the time that the Japanese were just getting a good start selling cars and pickups in the US.

As for the fuel cell vehicle, the only real advantage from the pollution standpoint is that the hydrocarbons are at the production site rather than the individual vehicle.

Gary

Edited September 7, 2009 by BigGary

[Harry P.]

As for the fuel cell vehicle, the only real advantage from the pollution standpoint is that the hydrocarbons are at the production site rather than the individual vehicle.

Gary

So which is better:

Having the pollution coming from the production sites and NONE from millions of individual vehicles?

Or having the pollution coming from the production sites AND from millions of individual vehicles, too?

[Modelmartin]

So which is better:

Having the pollution coming from the production sites and NONE from millions of individual vehicles?

Or having the pollution coming from the production sites AND from millions of individual vehicles, too?

It is easier to control pollution at one large site than hundreds of thousands of small sites(i.e. cars). That is the advantage from electric and fuel cell vehicles.

[Harry P.]

That's what I mean! Big Gary said the only advantage that FC vehicles would have from a pollution standpoint is that the pollution would be limited to the assembly plants. But that's the point! Better to have millions of cars on the road with zero emissions.

[old-hermit]

You will NEVER see fuel cell cars produced because a fuel cell can be incorporated into the design of a car and installed on board.

No moving parts, will never wear out and the FUEL (water) can be had at your garden hose.

No PROFIT in that huh ? All comes down to the bottom dollar.

[Art Anderson]

You will NEVER see fuel cell cars produced because a fuel cell can be incorporated into the design of a car and installed on board.

No moving parts, will never wear out and the FUEL (water) can be had at your garden hose.

No PROFIT in that huh ? All comes down to the bottom dollar.

If I've learned but one thing in my 65 yrs on this planet, it's to NEVER SAY NEVER. I've known people who were alive when "If God had meant man to fly, He would have given us wings!" was the watchword, yet my Dad was born just 6 days after the airplane. I guess I am old enough to remember adults talking about those modern cars of the 1950's in very much the same disparaging terms we're reading in this thread--"These danged new cars just don't look like cars, they don't take any skill to drive, you can't work on them"; all that sort of stuff. Of course, those were people who were elderly back then, they remembered the horseless carriage, cars with brass radiators and brass trim that had to be polished by then-10yr old kids for their parents.

Regardless of the power source, an automobile is, underneath all the frappery, a mechanical device, pure and simple, nothing more, and very little else. It won't much matter what the technology, what the fuel source is, or the means of propulsion. As long as there are people who want to get from here to there by mechanical means, there will be somebody there to make the vehicle for them to do just that.

We are living in a transitional age, but of course, except for only a few periods in history, mankind has always lived in transition; of course transition today being at warp speed compared to centuries past.

Saturday, I was at Auburn IN, walking through the ACD Museum, and guess what? In addition to all the gleaming Auburns, Cords and Duesenbergs there (along with a smattering of Packards, Cadillacs, a Rolls Royce or two, and some 50's and 60's cars), I saw several dozen very basic automobiles, Zimmermans, Eckhardts, and a few other long disappeared makes that were as basic as basic gets. And, not all of those early cars on display used gasoline, either. There was an early steam car (Locomobile, I believe), and a couple of Pope-Waverly electrics. But, in comparison to even a 1930's car, they had one universal characteristic: They were primitively basic--little more than a chassis, a motor of some sort, a few gears, perhaps a chain drive, a simple tiller connected to what could best be described as go-kart steering, wooden wheels and some even had solid rubber tires. But in a real sense, they were just as modern cars, a combination of mechanical transport, and appliances.

Now, who knows what the ultimate fuel source will be for the future? I sure don't, and I question whether anyone truly does. What I am certain of, though, is that there will be something come to the forefront, likely from a very sustainable source as well. In the meantime, while the fuel sources of the future are debated, developed and brought to market, there are numerous other sources for the interim, many of which have yet to be really tapped into.

So, in a lot of ways, IMO, much of the argument, the rhetoric, while making for spirited conversation, is just that, rhetoric.

Art

[Modelmartin]

You will NEVER see fuel cell cars produced because a fuel cell can be incorporated into the design of a car and installed on board.

No moving parts, will never wear out and the FUEL (water) can be had at your garden hose.

No PROFIT in that huh ? All comes down to the bottom dollar.

Honda has a fuel cell powered car in production NOW. They are leasing them in LA area because that is the only place that does have hydrogen filling stations. They are taking a hit on each car but are planning on the cost going down as the technology and manufacturing is refined and economies of scale kick in. Hydrogen is the fuel and water is the engine's by product. You can't run it on water any more than you could with a gas engine.

Art is right that this is just a bunch of rhetoric (in other words BS). Like any of us on this forum will impact the future!!

[Harry P.]

I've been a big supporter of hydrogen power for as long as I've known about it. It makes so much sense... unlimited fuel supply, zero emissions. The only reason we don't have them on a large scale already is that the oil companies are using whatever influence they have in Washington (and that's plenty!) to keep it from going full speed ahead. But they can't stop progress forever. It's just a trickle now, but as more people become aware of the technology and the benefits, it will pick up steam regardless of whether Big Oil wants it to happen or not. Might not happen in our lifetime, but hydrogen powered cars will be the next big evolutionary step in mechanized transportation.

BTW... they are running natural gas powered taxis in Phoenix. Natural gas isn't "free" but it's very plentiful here in the US. Maybe natural gas powered cars will be a transitional step between gas and hydrogen power. You never know. The point is, there are so many possibilities out there, and we don't have to keep relying on the crazies of the world to sell us their oil. I've said it before... if our government was free to "do the right thing" it would be pushing hard for these alt-fuel technologies, which are real, and they work. They're not some sort of pie-in-the-sky fantasy... the technology exists now! But as we all know, there are many forces at work in D.C., and they mostly work on behalf of their own interest, not the interest of the people.

[Modelmartin]

The only reason we don't have them on a large scale already is that the oil companies are using whatever influence they have in Washington (and that's plenty!) to keep it from going full speed ahead. But they can't stop progress forever. It's just a trickle now, but as more people become aware of the technology and the benefits, it will pick up steam regardless of whether Big Oil wants it to happen or not.

Be careful because "Big Oil" might transform into "Big Hydrogen" or " Big Water"

[old-hermit]

The reason why I say you won't see fuel cell cars is the same reason you won't have fuel cells powering your house or anything else for that matter. The technology has been around over 170 years but nobody has developed it commercially because there's no PROFIT in it. The entire world is run on profit & loss. Why would anyone build something that they can't make money off of. A fuel cell the size of a small portable generator can provide enough power to run a 2500 square foot house with some left over. Ya think the local power company wants to buy YOUR excess power ? NO, they want to SELL you power. Right back to the BOTTOM DOLLAR. To quote an old quote "The Golden Rule, He who has the gold makes the rules".

.The Invention of the Fuel Cell

Sir William Grove invented the first fuel cell in 1839. Grove knew that water could be split into hydrogen and oxygen by sending an electric current through it (a process called electrolysis). He hypothesized that by reversing the procedure you could produce electricity and water. He created a primitive fuel cell and called it a gas voltaic battery. After experimenting with his new invention, Grove proved his hypothesis. Fifty years later, scientists Ludwig Mond and Charles Langer coined the term fuel cell while attempting to build a practical model to produce electricity.

[Joe Handley]

Yup, and the Navy has been using the process for years now on their nuke subs to produce oxygen too!

[Harry P.]

Be careful because "Big Oil" might transform into "Big Hydrogen" or " Big Water"

But there's a fundamental difference.

It takes a big company with huge amounts of money to find, extract, refine and distribute oil. Oil only exists in certain places, and those places are all already owned or leased by the big companies. You couldn't go into an oil field, for example, sink "Andy's well" and start pumping oil. The oil companies would never let you do that.

But hydrogen is available in limitless supplies to anyone. Oil companies don't own the "hydrogen fields"...

[Modelmartin]

But hydrogen is available in limitless supplies to anyone.

Theoretically, sure, but tell dumb Ol Me how to make hydrogen without buying it or some expensive equipment to make it, that needs power to make it, and likely will need servicing and repair. If hydrogen does become the fuel of choice you KNOW that someone will make a pile of dough off of it. I'm just saying.